W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Better description for 'keywords' property

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:42:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnE+VwexxRd5vtWaqLB73jodVLo5GzC-m2fY4A54dzhyaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
As far as I can tell, the examples given by Karen fit more into a SKOS
model where each term is backed by a URI, as opposed to ambiguous keywords
as strings (or list of plain text keywords like we're talking about here
with the 'keywords' property).

So "subject" or "subject heading" seem to fit in the SKOS / term with URI
pattern which I'm happy with. It seems the concept of keywords in
schema.orgis more about plain text keywords.

Steph.


On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Dan, it is my experience that library systems do NOT use the term
> "keywords" for subject headings,[1] they use the term "subjects" or some
> variation thereof. So if there are some that use "keywords" I suspect they
> are in the minority, and that should not influence the use in schema.org.
> Comma-delimited keywords are very common on the Web and in software, and
> have become a kind of de facto standard.
>
> kc
>
> [1] Some examples from major vendors:
>
> LC (Voyager):
>
> Subjects:       Republican Party (U.S. : 1854- )
>         United States --Politics and government --2001-2009.
>
> OCLC:
>
> Subjects
>
>     Snowden, Edward J., -- 1983-
>     United States. -- National Security Agency/Central Security Service.
>     Leaks (Disclosure of information) -- United States.
>
> (III):
>
> Subject
> Iraq War, 2003-2011
> Intelligence service -- United States
> United States -- Politics and government -- 2001-
>
> etc.
>
>
> On 5/20/14, 6:59 AM, Dan Scott wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:17:12PM +0100, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 May 2014 06:31, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From previous conversations on this list, it looks like
>>>> http://schema.org/keywords is meant to hold a list of comma-separated
>>>> keywords, like the RDFa on this page:
>>>> http://arc.lib.montana.edu/msu-photos/item/286:
>>>>
>>>> <span property="keywords">john burke, msc, football, team</span>
>>>>
>>>> If this is correct, the description for this property, which
>>>> currently reads
>>>> "The keywords/tags used to describe this content", could be a bit more
>>>> detailled. I suggest:
>>>>
>>>> A comma-separated list of keywords/tags used to describe this content.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This sounds reasonable to me. The only objections I can think of
>>> involve trying to stretch this property too far, e.g. phrases that
>>> contain commas within them. Let's keep it simple...
>>>
>>> Does anyone here think that this change would not be an improvement?
>>>
>>
>> More specificity in defintions is certainly an improvement, but in the
>> absence of a "simple SKOS" mechanism, I know that software in the
>> library domain typically uses "keywords" (with its range of Text) to
>> express hierarchical subject headings.
>>
>> (Rationale: "description" seems much more appropriate for written
>> abstracts or
>> phrase-like constructions, while "keywords/tags" is a better match for
>> the typically 1-3 word subject headings used in libraries, and nothing
>> else had a range of Text that seemed like any kind of a match.)
>>
>> So there are currently hundreds and, as sites upgrade, will be thousands
>> of library Web sites that express "keywords" like:
>>
>> * keywords: Linux.
>> * keywords: Internet programming.
>> * keywords: Web sites > Design.
>> * keywords: Electronic mail systems > Security measures.
>>
>> This is because we augment the existing display of subject headings like
>> so:
>>
>> <div property="keywords">
>>   <a href="search?email">Electronic mail systems</a> &gt;  <a
>> href="search?email+security">Security measures.</a>
>> </div>
>>
>> If we get a simple SKOS mechanism in schema.org, we can address that in
>> the software that doesn't adhere to the stricter "comma-separated list"
>> definition that has been proposed, but please be aware that there are
>> known sites that will not be adhering to that definition for some time
>> to come.
>>
>> Overly long story short; how about a softened definition such as:
>>
>> "Keywords or tags used to describe this content. Multiple entries in a
>> keywords list are typically delimited by commas."
>>
>> That way, we would provide guidance to future implementations without
>> invalidating existing practice and making those implementers feel shamed
>> about their past decisions...
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>


-- 
Steph.
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 14:43:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:41 UTC